All Things BenghaziGate

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Thu, 2012-11-15 22:59

I think we should have a thread dedicated to the evolving Benghazi affair. Here is an excellent video.

"On Tuesday, November 13 at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy presented a live-streamed panel discussion on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin were joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss "Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.""

This is great background information to understand what was going on in Benghazi. Turkey and Libyan Jihadists were allied with the US to aid Syrian "revolutionaries" against Iran backed Assad. Focus on Diana West's discussion. She reveals how Jihadists were released, given leisurely prison sentences and then hired as "local militia". Of course these Jihadists turned and killed Americans. She also discusses the origins of the "Arab Spring" doctrine. This is pure insanity. Modern Liberalism is a mental illness just as much as it is bad philosophy.

So, Obama's real fear is not that he ran guns to al Qaeda, but that if this were known, al Qaeda would be removed as the possible suspect in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three Americans.

That is the real problem, because if al Qaeda is removed as a possible suspect because it was benefitting from the gun-running, who's left as a suspect? Who would want an American weapons pipeline to the Syrian rebels shut down? Once al Qaeda is removed from contention, and that question is posed, there is only one answer: the Hizbullah/Iranian axis.

This may be why Obama is doing everything in the universe to shut the Benghazi investigation down. Because the truth of the Benghazi gun-running operation immediately leads to the likely conclusion that Iran, and only Iran, had the motive to attack our Benghazi consulate and murder Ambassador Stevens.

In that case, Obama's "unprecedented" lie detector exams tazing CIA Benghazi operatives into silence is really an attempt to protect Iran from being exposed as the likely murderer of an American Ambassador and 3 of his valiant protectors.

And that begs an even bigger questions.

Why would Obama protect Iran from being exposed as a possible suspect?

Is Obama just a consistent Leftist or does he have a specific plan to destroy America; i.e. Cloward/Piven?

Diana Hsieh tells us that Obama is not that bad? Yaron Brook is dealing with property rights in the ocean and Ed Hugins is colonizing Mars. But hell, at least Obama is not an imminent Christian theocrat.

I would not be surprised if Obama did NOT issue the stand down order. I have no doubt that the order came from the White House or State Department. An underling is not going to countermand the order of a superior like General Ham.

Ham is the guy Congress needs to speak to.

But going back to the 10PM call between Hillary and Obama. This is the guy who agonized for months on-end about executing the bin Laden raid, so I find it reasonable that he simply passed the buck to Hillary, and then the two scoundrels disappeared to provide themselves with deniability.

It's like something out of Atlas where the cretins run for cover during a crisis and do everything possible to avoid responsibility. Anyway, if true, such dereliction of duty by the commander-in-chief is beyond contempt.

I don't think Obama will be impeached, in any event. While Obama has been busy building an Iron Curtain around the US, his handlers have been building an Iron Curtain around him. I hope Obama gets exposed, but that would need people right next to Obama, like Axelrod, to turn on him, and Obama's got people lined up across the earth willing to fall on their sword for him. The latest being his WH lawyer, which makes a case for impeachment highly improbable, at best.

Somebody from the White House gave the stand down order. General Ham was going to defy the stand down order, and now he's hit the high road into retirement after they got an underling to enforce the order.

By at least 8PM Hillary knows what's going on in Benghazi, ie. that it is a terrorist attack. She has a phone call with Obama at 10PM. Then these two can't be reached any longer, and any attempts to rescue are rebuked.

What the hell did they discuss during that phone call? Obama is the commander-in-chief and knows the dire situation, did he merely pass the buck, or issue the order? You tell me.

All I know is that these scandals get crazier and crazier by the minute. First DOJ is busted spying on the AP, now Fox News reporter Jeff Rosen was named as an unindicted co-conspirator based on a story about a North Korean missile launch. Somehow a judge signed the warrant, and they monitored his emails for at least three months, obtained his phone records, and now it's starting to trickle out that they were monitoring the phones of other people at Fox.

This is the kind of insanity that happens in third world banana republics.

That would explain the reluctance of all parties presumably in the know to front up as to why Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place. And Hillary's desperate and angry efforts to deflect attention from the issue. "What does it matter?"

Didn't they learn from Iran/Contra? Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

And where was the President? Who gave the order to stand down? At whose insistence were the talking points altered?

I fervently hope it's Obamarx who's stood down as a result of all this.

My assumption regarding the Obama Administration's transparent lies about Benghazi was that they were attempting to simply further the party line that al-Qaeda was in the death throes. Obama needed to promote his alleged foreign policy successes during the re-election campaign.

But the deeper truth just may be worse than that. Much worse.

If this story is true, and I hope to Galt these diplomats testify before Congress, Hillary Clinton is so far beyond incompetent that she needs to be committed to an insane asylum. Who the eff sells Stingers to Libyan insurgents (aka al-Qaeda) to oust Gaddafi "on the cheap"?!? "ON THE CHEAP" the State Department forks over Stingers to al-Qaeda, then sends the ambassador to retrieve those missiles from the very same mortal enemy of America?!?

Forget running for president, this woman, if she can be called that, isn't fit to run to the corner store for milk.

Diana West proves why she is a one woman army for truth with the above column. Obama and Clinton had minimal involvement with Benghazi. They just didn't care. Words don't describe how evil they are. If you don't hate today's Leftist political and media elites, you have no soul even if you claim to follow a certain Russian novelist's philosophy.

But the Post reports that Broadwell turned over her computer to the FBI in late summer, “and agents discovered that it contained low-level classified material.” This is important because the FBI, at this time, did not inform Congress about the investigation. The Post goes on: “On Nov. 12, the FBI searched her home in Charlotte and carried away additional evidence that she had classified documents, law enforcement officials said.”

Jesus. Was Patreus so hard up for sex that he gave away classified material for it? This is just so... Airhead America.

Obama's foreign policy has been called "leading from behind". His "strategy" for stopping jihad against the US:

1) Apologize for the United States over and over again.
2) Hug the Muslim Brotherhood and install them in power wherever possible.
3) Get rid of old-line dictators by “leading from behind” with no ground forces.
4) Create “daylight” with Israel and bad mouth Israel at every opportunity.

Number 5 is BenghaziGate; ie run guns and heavy weaponry to Al Qaeda in Syria which is consistent with “leading from behind” and Obama’s strategy of being Mr. Sugar Daddy to jihadis, which is really just the “Chicago Way” of buying off threats with ample corruption. As has been said, it works until it doesn’t.

Obama is a stupid man. He thinks everything operates like Chicago. He thought he could bribe Al Qaeda into passivity. Whites fawn all over him making him think he really is a magical Black man. He and his people thought that buying AQ off would work. He thought that Islamic terrorism operated like the Chicago mob; ie that there is a central command, one boss of bosses. However, that is not the way the Islamic Middle East works, there are many bosses and most hate each other.

Obama orchestrated the Benghazi arms dealing affair in order to arm Assad's opposition. He did this because he thought this would placate the Jihadists and thus pacify them. Only a delusional Leftist could think that. Not even Bush would believe that and Bush was a monumental fool.

The coverup and the sacrifice of the 4 people (2 SEALs) was because Obama didn't want the US public to know that he was arming Al Qaeda with weapons, weapons that could be used to attack the American homeland. This especially after the Obama administration made Al Qaeda the enemy instead of Islam.

This should be the end of Obama but it probably won't be because he is a Leftist and he is black. That gives him cover to basically do anything he wants.

Why would the administration hierarchy collaborate in putting out a phony story denying there had been a terrorist attack and attributing it to a spontaneous riot that never happened?

Two answers come to mind:

One, the "spontaneous protest" cover story would enable Obama to keep pushing his campaign line that he had gotten Osama bin Laden and that al-Qaida was "on the run" and "on the path to defeat." A successful al-Qaida-type attack in Libya would have contradicted his best foreign policy claim.

Second, if it was a spontaneous attack, an attack no one could have foreseen, predicted or prevented, then that would absolve the administration of responsibility for failing to see it coming, failing to provide greater security, failing to have forces prepared to deal with it when our guys were being shot and killed for seven hours.

What was behind the cover-up is what Congress needs to find out.

by Patrick J. Buchanan - co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

"On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile". On November 7, 2012, Nakoula plead guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release."

You have to wonder if the producer of the Innocence of Muslims would have been sent to prison if the Obama administration had not made his film responsible for the attack.

Now, I'm not one to judge them all as if they're one, and there is no new Objectivism - apart from Ayn Rand's - but a development, but it will be a good exercise to identify, in the writings of ARI and 'associates' such as Amy and Bosch Peikoff, and others, where they are shooting themselves in the feet about the most illiberal, primitive threat we all face

That's a good idea. There is also The Objective Standard blog. I would classify that as orthodox Objectivism also. Mainstream O'ism is strongest when dealing with political economy. Its war commentary has bright spots like exposing Just War theory. But it still ignores what to me is the central point, namely that Islam is evil, savage and iredeemable, and that a Muslim presence in the West is the *central* problem in this war. ARI will never agree with that though because they would have to deal with the problem of immigration in general and they are open border fanatics, a position I loathe.

Also, Mainstream O'ism is weak on attacking the Left. They rarely do. Most of their energy is spent on Conservatives. This pisses me off too. But I am going to pay more attention to their press releases. If after Nov 6th 2012 they are still bashing Conservatives then it may be the case that organized Objectivism is dead.

As for Peikoff, he's the only KASS person in mainstream O'ism. No matter how flaky he can be, I still respect him for his ballsyness. But if he is the most Kass now, what will the Objectivist movement be like when he goes? Who is Kass outside of Lindsay?

Indeed, as an American support of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1979 leaded to 9/11 attack in 2001, so this deadly attack on the American embassy in Benghazi was an end result of long American policy which supported Al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan terrorists. As Clare Lopez, who is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, observed :

"During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.
Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.
Although Belhadj reportedly now has moved on to Syria to help lead the fight against the Assad regime being waged by the Syrian Free Army (SFA), other Libyan fighters, who were formerly members of his LIFG and other Al Qaeda affiliates formed a new terror militia in Libya (and elsewhere) called Ansar al-Shariah (Supporters of Sharia/Islamic Law).
According to an August, 2012 report from the Library of Congress and the Kronos organization, “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile,” Ansar al-Shariah is an Al Qaeda franchise operation, established in Libya with the assistance of senior Al Qaeda operatives dispatched from Pakistan specifically to supervise the set up of a new clandestine Al Qaeda network in Libya that would refrain from using the Al Qaeda name.
The Derna, Libya Ansar al-Shariah cell is led by a former GITMO detainee named Sufian Ben Qhumu. The September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate compound that killed Ambassador Stevens, his staffer Sean Smith and the two Navy SEALs was directed and led by Ansar al-Shariah. "

Not only Obama's administration failed to protect Americans in Libya or properly retaliate-it's actually funded and reared their murderers-radical jihadists. However not all Muslims in Libya support Al-Qaeda. About 30000 of them participated in pro-American demonstrations, and condemned the terrorism in much stronger terms than President Obama did. They denied that killers represent Benghazi or Islam. They said:" "We disapprove/condemn the humiliation of the prophet but NOT with Terrorism."

"In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans."

Ryan talked shit.... and neither Tweedles have any credibility. (BO or Mittens.)

"we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression," and that "if we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn't have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn't a fun vote."

He speaks as though he expects to control an economy, like any good communist. For Ryan to pretend there is a free market is proof he is another shyster of the corrupt political establishment. They deserved to lose. The GOP was proven to be a little more honest, or naive, in that they didn't, or couldn't, rig the vote.

Edit;

"The GOP was proven to be a little more honest, or naive, in that they didn't, or couldn't, rig the vote."

"Petraeus also told CNN that his resignation was solely the result of the affair and was not linked, as some Republicans have hinted, to the CIA's role during the Benghazi attack in which the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans, including two CIA security men, were killed."

"The extramarital relationship ended months ago. But it continues to make waves in Washington, as suspicions ripple through the capital about the timing of its revelation and Petraeus' scheduled testimony into the Benghazi attack."

It takes time for the natural law of "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" to take effect. But it will.

One of us will need to start another about the intrinsicism of objectivist writers. You, Kyrel, and occasionally Lindsay, and some others tend to lay the blame for the world's resultant ills at Objectivists. Now, I'm not one to judge them all as if they're one, and there is no new Objectivism - apart from Ayn Rand's - but a development, but it will be a good exercise to identify, in the writings of ARI and 'associates' such as Amy and Bosch Peikoff, and others, where they are shooting themselves in the feet about the most illiberal, primitive threat we all face. This includes the Biddle, Schwartz, Binswanger 'open' immigration stances, and the libertarian view. I think I have a formulation from another thread which makes sense. Leonard Peikoff seems to have the right idea, though sadly, it appears, unless I'm mistaken, that others are waiting till he kicks the bucket to state any equally helpful position. Having said that - this is not the Vatican - we should not await direction from anybody. Reality is the arbiter of truth. Who is the closest to the full contextual reality?

I see it as a realisation that most people are in fact immoral, and they have the representatives that they wish for.

Powerful statement and true. Auster said something very similar today:

In liberal America, which is their country not ours, even the most respected, most highly placed, most powerful individuals are of weak or low character. Or rather such individuals in particular are of weak or low character. Given the false and evil beliefs that liberal society requires of its ruling elite, it can be no other way.

He's using the term liberal because he is a true Conservative that is opposed to both Classical Liberalism and Leftism, but his statement is true nevertheless. Its like in 'Atlas Shrugged' where everyone with few exceptions became immoral. That book is coming to life in a way Ayn Rand would never have dreamed.

We have clear evidence that President B.O.'s foreign policy is assisting this enemy of humanity.

Well stated. Let's see if he can survive this. The man seems immune to everything.

I watched all of this earlier today. (I like her accent, she's relaxed and not too frumpy. And content - good.) Now, this is where it gets important - the correct identification of Islam. It is not simply a religion. It is a supremacist movement with clearly stated aims. Its adherents never deny this. If they're to be believed then indeed, it is a criminal organisation. I believe them. We have clear evidence that President B.O.'s foreign policy is assisting this enemy of humanity. If an American administration was assisting an enemy such as Hitler, not just for a short term benefit, but with ongoing propaganda favouring the enemy, that administration, by definition is criminal.

You're entirely correct that the political class of America is criminal. I don't restrict this to the Democrats. I see it as a realisation that most people are in fact immoral, and they have the representatives that they wish for.

As for the overtly criminal, genital mutilating, stone-age 'slime - certainly - export them back to the hell holes of their own making.

I wasn't expecting much from Petraeus, as he already promulgated a false story that, by his own admission now, he knew to be false "almost immediately". We'll see, though, as this sounds somewhat promising:

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew "almost immediately" that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
[...]
Other than Petraeus's upcoming testimony being "different than what he initially said," Starr's source also reported that Petraeus will tell Congress that at first there were at least 20 different intelligence reports floating around that said the video was responsible for the attack, and that over time, those reports were "slowly disproved."

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

Focus on Stephen Coughlin's discussion of how Muslims see Islam at 1:25:00. He doesn't say so explicitly but he offers good reasons why Islam is NOT just a religion but a legal/political/military movement as well. I think he is supporting my view that Islam should be BANNED and Muslims deported. Objectivists need to wrestle with this argument. It is legitimate. Islam's ultimate aim is worldwide domination. That is essential to their religion. There is no way that Islam should be granted Constitutional protections.

The ARI's entire approach to Islamic terrorism has been to treat it SOLELY as a military problem. That is wrong. The solution may very well be to ban Islam and remove Muslims from Western lands. I know that is not possible under Leftist rule. But that is THE LIBERTY ORIENTED SOLUTION. And 11 years post 9/11 no Objectivist organization has even considered it. In fact, they denounce you if you suggest it. With friends like those who needs Leftists.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.